Billions of Dollars still being wasted on Mars Probes and, back to the Moon missions.This is all insanity!

[ChemEngineer]

Whereas I see the universe as an intelligence producing machine so to speak and if there is other intelligence out there it would look very much like the intelligence that exists here.

Without Democrats.

 

[daveman]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

There have been terrabytes of science fiction about living things not based on terrestrial chemistry. Some of it's the bug-eyed monster variety with little basis in science...but much of it has been written by scientists who know what they're talking about.

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

I think a quote from Heisenberg...a very intelligent man of science -- is apropos here: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

Whereas I see the universe as an intelligence producing machine so to speak and if there is other intelligence out there it would look very much like the intelligence that exists here.

Not necessarily.

 

[daveman]

Oh, my goodness, you're not bright.

I caught you in a MISTAKE haha, so now you're resorting to ad hominems. Typical for those who can't admit when they made a mistake haha.

You're way too dumb to be having this conversation.

So now you're running away like the chicken shit you are b/c I have outsmarted you haha.

Thank you proving my assertion that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

C'mon, now you're arguing semantics which is boring AF just b/c you lost an argument. Run, run, run away you lil crybaby.

Your insistence that the only possible building blocks of life are terrestrial proteins is remarkably closed-minded. And it's your own fault.

Answer his question. What ARE the building blocks of life then?

I made no mistakes. You fucked up. You refuse to admit it.

Run along, boy.

 

[daveman]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Let daveman answer for himself. Does he need his daddy to spreak up for him?

Depends. What the hell does "spreak" mean, you retard?

 

[daveman]

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

That's just plain wrong and stupid AF. Uniformitarianism and evolution are impossible except for natural selection. The Earth is a sphere is settled science. Evolution is religion as there is no science in it (again except for natural selection which creation science has). You believe in religion and not science.

Here's the really funny part:

I believe in science. I ALSO believe in God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, except in the small minds of small people.

Now, predictably, you will screech NUH UH!! and pretend you made a rational argument.

Surprise me. Don't.

 

[james bond]

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

That's just plain wrong and stupid AF. Uniformitarianism and evolution are impossible except for natural selection. The Earth is a sphere is settled science. Evolution is religion as there is no science in it (again except for natural selection which creation science has). You believe in religion and not science.

Here's the really funny part:

I believe in science. I ALSO believe in God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, except in the small minds of small people.

Now, predictably, you will screech NUH UH!! and pretend you made a rational argument.

Surprise me. Don't.

No, it's not funny believing in God and not believing in his science. God is the behind the real science as the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.

Now, how does one pack so called billions of years of universe into 6,000 years of Earth? (There is no question the universe is such a huge place that it is tough to comprehend and it's still expanding! Billions of light years across is probably closer to its measurements today.) It's gravitational time dilation. We are measuring distance and to correlate it with spacetime gives us a skewed idea of time. We still have existed for around 6,000 years than billions. The Earth cannot possibly last that long as there are factors causing its death. Even our universe is dying.

What you believe is not real science, but false science. It is not God's science at all, but the science of atheism. That's what I mean by you believe in religion. Anyway, you're like ding. He thinks like a liberal and believes in the science of atheism, too haha.

 

[daveman]

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

That's just plain wrong and stupid AF. Uniformitarianism and evolution are impossible except for natural selection. The Earth is a sphere is settled science. Evolution is religion as there is no science in it (again except for natural selection which creation science has). You believe in religion and not science.

Here's the really funny part:

I believe in science. I ALSO believe in God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, except in the small minds of small people.

Now, predictably, you will screech NUH UH!! and pretend you made a rational argument.

Surprise me. Don't.

No, it's not funny believing in God and not believing in his science. God is the behind the real science as the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.

Now, how does one pack so called billions of years of universe into 6,000 years of Earth? (There is no question the universe is such a huge place that it is tough to comprehend and it's still expanding! Billions of light years across is probably closer to its measurements today.) It's gravitational time dilation. We are measuring distance and to correlate it with spacetime gives us a skewed idea of time. We still have existed for around 6,000 years than billions. The Earth cannot possibly last that long as there are factors causing its death. Even our universe is dying.

What you believe is not real science, but false science. It is not God's science at all, but the science of atheism. That's what I mean by you believe in religion. Anyway, you're like ding. He thinks like a liberal and believes in the science of atheism, too haha.

Here's the thing. I don't pretend to have all the answers; in fact, I have very few. Science can't provide concrete understanding of the origin of life. Religion can't provide concrete understand of the age of the universe. Both can provide estimates, educated guesses, of either. But they can't say for sure.

And I'm okay with that. If I still want to know the answers, I'll ask God when I meet Him in His Heaven. He'll be able to show me exactly how He created the universe.

Until then, I'll always have the same excitement I did as a kid for space exploration. God made us a very beautiful universe. We should see as much of it as we can.

 

[james bond]

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

That's just plain wrong and stupid AF. Uniformitarianism and evolution are impossible except for natural selection. The Earth is a sphere is settled science. Evolution is religion as there is no science in it (again except for natural selection which creation science has). You believe in religion and not science.

Here's the really funny part:

I believe in science. I ALSO believe in God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, except in the small minds of small people.

Now, predictably, you will screech NUH UH!! and pretend you made a rational argument.

Surprise me. Don't.

No, it's not funny believing in God and not believing in his science. God is the behind the real science as the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.

Now, how does one pack so called billions of years of universe into 6,000 years of Earth? (There is no question the universe is such a huge place that it is tough to comprehend and it's still expanding! Billions of light years across is probably closer to its measurements today.) It's gravitational time dilation. We are measuring distance and to correlate it with spacetime gives us a skewed idea of time. We still have existed for around 6,000 years than billions. The Earth cannot possibly last that long as there are factors causing its death. Even our universe is dying.

What you believe is not real science, but false science. It is not God's science at all, but the science of atheism. That's what I mean by you believe in religion. Anyway, you're like ding. He thinks like a liberal and believes in the science of atheism, too haha.

Here's the thing. I don't pretend to have all the answers; in fact, I have very few. Science can't provide concrete understanding of the origin of life. Religion can't provide concrete understand of the age of the universe. Both can provide estimates, educated guesses, of either. But they can't say for sure.

And I'm okay with that. If I still want to know the answers, I'll ask God when I meet Him in His Heaven. He'll be able to show me exactly how He created the universe.

Until then, I'll always have the same excitement I did as a kid for space exploration. God made us a very beautiful universe. We should see as much of it as we can.

The things you say tells me you do not have any or few answers. If you support the science of atheism, then you would know it was abiogenesis (prior to it was the erroneous belief in spontaneous generation) that caused the origin of life. These people believe in something they cannot possibly back up. It was the supernatural that created life and this is how we have the supernatural -- life itself -- living next to the natural. What else can continue to live after death? The supernatural life itself. Of course, the science of atheism refuses to believe this. Creation science and Dr. Louis Pasteur showed that only life can beget life.

Instead, what the believers and I know for sure is in the Genesis book of the Bible. It is the foundation of creation science and science backs it up. How else could science be so we know and understand how the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here?

As for the age of the universe, it should be the same as the age of the Earth when it was created. It is estimated to be around 6,000 years. However, the diameter is in billions of light years so it is too large to comprehend. We know that through observation.

You can ask God, but you'll have to pass Final Judgement first. We know that there will be a period of tribulations after Jesus arrives again on Earth. The Bible is allegorical when it discusses the prophecies and this period so we do not know for sure who is saved, who is misled, and who will not be saved. Satan is also light in our world, so things are not a slam dunk. He is the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air." He is too good at misleading and tempting humans. God the Father isn't with us anymore. We have the Holy Spirit within us and Jesus as remembrance in our hearts.

I made a thread about comparing the Bible and Satan's Antibible of Evolution almost a year ago, but could not continue that line of argument. Everything that God said in the Bible is still being contradicted by the rebelling Satan and his Antibible of Evolution, but I found it was a difficult argument to make as it doesn't necessarily make for a winning argument despite it being true. Satan as god of this world is too powerful and dangerous -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.

I, too, like space toys and sci-fil aliens, but am not a follower of the latest space achievements and happenings. Others would know more, so this is about the best explanation I can give. There is the distant starlight difference. There is a lot that was discovered and covered up. There is the way to travel to the future, but no way to travel to the past. The best part is I know that the science of atheism is wrong with their explanations and theories.